The name of this blog comes from a quote from the Canadian Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier. "Canada is free and freedom is its nationality."
This blog is meant to contribute to the philosophical and political movement towards greater personal responsibility and freedom.
Hugh Mackenzie likes to look at economic policy through the eyes of a 4-year-old. And he seems to think a 4-year-old would see the need for high taxes.
Maybe that's so. But an adult would understand that lower taxes allow Canadians to keep more of the money they earn. This, in turn, would promote risk-taking and innovation and encourage entrepreneurs to do what they do best: create jobs.
An adult would also understand that if government was more careful with its spending, it could make do with less.
Gerry Nicholls, Oakville
I think that just this once I'm going to ignore family loyalty...
According to the National Post, the SSJB want the Queen's heir to say sorry for the following wrongs:
1. Acadian deportation 2. Deporting or executing the leaders of the 1837 Rebellion 3. Uniting Upper and Lower Canada 1940 4. Executing Louis Reil 5. repatriation of the constitution without Quebecs permission.
Some quick notes on these complaints
1. A fair thing to complain about. It was a horrific moment in Canadian history. I'm not sure if the Crown should be saying sorry to Quebec though. Perhaps it would be better to say sorry to the Cajuns in Louisiana.
2. They were criminals who were punished. In general I have a lot of sympathy for the Upper and Lower Canada rebellions in 1837. I think their cause was just. But they were still criminals. As Wilfrid Laurier put is "rebellion is always an evil, it is always an offence against the positive law of a nation; it is not always a moral crime." So as an offence to the law, it was punished. No need to say sorry
3. The Durham Report makes it clear that the Act of Union was meant to stomp out French society, but it didn't. In fact East Canada's culture flourished at this time and Quebec's political influence was substantial. I guess Prince Charles could apologies for having tried and failed, but what purpose would it serve?
4. Same response as #2.
5. There was a constitutional debate about this, the Quebec government lost. Why would you ask the Crown to apologies for that.
I think saying sorry for historical wrongs is silly to begin with. But this is a particularly silly list.
The British National Party, a blatantly fascist organization, was recently given a forum on the BBC's Question Time. For the most part BNP's leader's performance was met with ridicule and outrage. There is however an organization that denounced the BNP's freedom to speak.
James Lawson at adamsmith.org, makes the case for why freedom of speech should be defended even for fascists.
Looking back at Question Time
The BNP are an abhorrent body, favouring a dangerous ideology with roots in Nazism. After a recent tour of the Auschwitz-Birkenau camps, my hatred for National Socialism is unrelenting. However, the extended mass hysteria following Griffin’s appearance, itself generated unprecedented publicity for the BNP and allowed Griffin to appear as the victim. Had the BBC denied the BNP a slot on Question Time, the effect would have been to intensify this further and allow the party to garner greater sympathy.
It has long been the stated goal of the Scottish National Party (SNP), the governing party in the Scottish Parliament, to hold a referendum on Independence. Their difficulty is that the SNP are in a minority government. They need either the support of the Liberal Democrats or the Labour Party to bring about a referendum.
The Labour Party is completely against it. The Scottish wing of the party appear content with the current constitutional makeup of the United Kingdom. They would oppose the referendum bill and certainly campaign for the status quo if there is a referendum.
The Scotsman is reporting that several SNP Members of Scottish Parliament are privately giving up hope of a referendum in the near future. This may be premature considering the Liberal Democrats are not completely settled on their position.
The Liberal Democrats oppose Independence for Scotland, but they wish to see the Scottish government receive more powers. By Canadian standards the Scottish government is extremely limited in their powers, and the Liberal Democrats favour a more federalist system in the United Kingdom.
So the Liberal Democrats may be brought on board by introducing a third option in the referendum. This option is being called 'devolution plus' and depending on how it is phrased is most likely to receive the plurality of votes.
On a side note, I must say that the Independence debate in Scotland takes on a very different tone than the one in Quebec. There does not seem to be much rancor or hostility. Scotland is changing and the Scottish seem to be very open minded on the debate of how that change should take shape.
According to this Canadian Press article, a majority of Canadians think that the Conservatives are favouring their own ridings with government funds. This is hardly surprising. The Liberals have been beating this stick for about a month now, and people are always willing to believe the worst about politicians. A lack of faith that is well founded. Pork barrelling is an ancient tradition that goes back to the Romans. It certainly has a bases in Canadian history. John A. MacDonald was shameless in the way he handed out government money.
Sadly no one is shocked, no one is surprised, and as far as I can tell no one cares. The Conservatives still flirt with majority level support and the Liberals are still in trouble. If this scandal was going to have an impact it would already have happened. It is not that people don't think the Conservatives aren't corrupt, it is that they think that all the parties are corrupt. So it pretty much cancels itself out.
The truth is I don't blame political parties, not really. The true culprit is the decision making process of government. And there is no way to truly reform it. Individual interests will always win out against collective rationality. That is, politicians and civil servants are human too and no human is perfectly altruistic.
So if the problem is government itself, what is the solution? This may shock you, but the solution is less government. You give politicians and bureaucrats less money and resources to play with, you get less corrupt behaviour.
This excellent column appeared at the Libertas Post:
In the Grip of Madness
“Thank God we had the federal government last week to bail out the private sector!” That is what a rather statist friend of mine declared a year ago as the economy tanked, almost gleeful that the financial crisis seemed to be proving how much we all need a massive federal establishment to both regulate and rescue us.
Never mind the federal government’s own indispensable role as an enabler in the crisis, from its reckless monetary policy to its jawboning banks into making dubious mortgage loans. Never mind the long-term danger of its assumption of colossal new obligations and the moral hazard in the message its intervention sends. My response to my friend was of a more narrow focus. “Thank God we have the private sector to bail out the federal government not just last week, but every week!” I exclaimed.
Think about it. Taxes on the private sector pay a majority of the federal government’s bills. For most of the rest, the government borrows by selling its debt obligations, mostly to private-sector entities–including banks, insurance companies, and individuals.
The federal government is the world’s biggest taxer and the world’s biggest debtor. If those of us in the private sector didn’t pay our taxes or didn’t buy Washington’s paper, the feds would have gone belly-up decades ago. We’ve rescued Washington to the tune of tens of trillions of dollars over the years. A big difference between Washington’s bailing out the private sector and the private sector’s bailing out Washington is that the private sector has to work, invest, employ people, and produce goods to come up with the cash. It can’t create it out of thin air like Ben Bernanke can.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi attempts to make an argument that allowing the sunsetted tax decreases to expire is not a tax increase.
She is correct in a sense, but in a more important way she is not. She is right that the law is that the tax cuts were temporary. Perhaps it should be viewed more as a limited tax holiday than a tax decrease.
Still the truth of the matter is that Americans are going to pay more taxes this year than they did last year. The machinations of Congress matters little to the average American who is seeing the government take a bigger cut of their pay cheque. This is especially bad at a time where the USA's economy is recovering.
Who is willing to argue that taking more capital out of the market will be a positive for the economy.
The rest is the usual cries of populist socialism. Call your Congressman, take over the local political organization, unionize the workers, only do business with local banks, and so on. Seriously what continually strikes me most is how Mr. Moore never says anything new. He simply re brands ideas that have been kicking around since the 60s. And guess what there are reasons why those ideas didn't work then either.
(okay the only having one credit card suggestion is actually good advice. I'll give him that one.)
Last few years Ossington has gone from a dump to a happening entertainment district. It is a clear example of how investment and hard work can change a neighbourhood for the better. So of course the City Council has to destroy it.
Among the recommendations made in the report: an ongoing ban on backyard patios, a size limit for restaurants and a regulation that would require every restaurant to provide parking spaces.
I don't think I've ever been to a bar in Toronto that provided parking spaces. And what the hell is with limiting the size of restaurants? Oh sorry you are too successful, we want you to be making less money.
It's Joe Pantelone, the area's councillor, who is leading the charge against progress. Basically he's afraid that the new comers won't vote for him so he's doing everything he can to chase them out. He already succeeded in preventing any new licenses to be issued on Ossington.
Toronto is a great city, I love it there. I just wish the its government would allow it to be even better.
This clip lasted 2 minutes and 36 seconds. In that time I counted 12 ways that Michael Moore is an idiot.
Stupid things Michael Moore said:
1. Capitalism is a legal system If you are going to make a movie about something shouldn’t you know what the word means? Just as a beginning point at least. A quick Wikipedia search of the word tells you that it is an “economic and social system,” not a legal system. To be sure there is a legal structure that is needed to make capitalism work properly, but that doesn’t make capitalism a legal system itself.
2. Regulation and rules that use to keep them in check are no longer keeping them in check There are no more regulations? That’s news to me. I think it would also be news to the thousands of small and large companies that have to suffer increased costs due to mind numbingly dumb regulations.
3. Rich having more is anti-democracy What is anti-democratic about someone having more stuff than me? Or even having a lot more stuff than me? I guess it is only democracy if we all have the same amount of stuff...oh wait isn’t that called something else?
4. Not only against democracy but against his personal values This I admit is a bit of a cheap shot, but did you notice how he made a distinction between his values and democratic values?
5. Against the values of people Yes because lord knows that capitalism goes against the very fibre of America society. The free exchange of goods and services is universally condemned by every right thinking American. The USA hates freedom and capitalism that’s for sure. That’s why they were so friendly with the Soviet Union.
6. Jesus wouldn’t approve of a hedge fund How the hell does he know what Jesus would think? Capitalism wasn’t even an abstract concept when Jesus was alive, so how can we possible discern his opinion on that never mind his opinion on hedge funds. You know what, 2 can play at this game. Jesus hates tax collectors therefore Jesus likes capitalism.
7. Replace capitalism with democracy What the hell? Democracy is a political system. It isn’t even a legal system. So how can he even conceptualize replacing capitalism with democracy? What do we do? Vote on what job someone will get, how much they get paid, how much his groceries will cost, and so on?
8. How can we call it a democracy just because we vote Because that’s what democracy means? Sure there has to be a couple more requirements to fully qualify as a democracy in most people’s minds; such as competitive elections and the rule of law. But voting is the fundamental core of every democratic system.
9. Don’t want to lose his democratic rights when he goes to work in the morning or go to the bank At this point it is pretty clear he doesn’t know what the word democratic means. Even the Greeks wouldn’t stretch it to include commercial activity. He is just using it as a buzz word to avoid using the word socialism. This kind of demonstrates just how stupid #5 is.
10. Stop the debate between capitalism and socialism Umm...okay? One system is based on voluntary individualism and the other is based on coercive collectivism. There may be a wide spectrum between two extremes but how exactly do you propose breaking this paradigm? Wouldn’t involving democratic voting in commercial activity just lead to the coercive model? Or did you think people wouldn’t notice?
11. we are smart enough to come up with a new system that is fair to all people Demonstrably untrue; people have been trying to do this for thousands of years. Why do you think just because it is a new century we are suddenly smarter? I’ve seen no indication of this increased intelligence.
12. It’s time to start sticking up for the little guy in this country This isn’t so much stupid in of itself but stupid in to context of the rest of the clip. Socialism does not benefit the little guy. And let’s be real here, it is socialism and not some sort of commercial democracy that Michael Moore is advocating. Every socialist system has shown that it ultimately benefits a select group of elites. You want to protect the little guy’s interests? Protect capitalism.
The Toronto Star is reporting that talks to exempt Canada from the “Buy American” provisions have "bogged down." The article points out that if the talks take too long the damage would have been done to Canadian industry. Yet it is more the long term damage that I am concerned about; the long term damage to the reliability of free trade.
If all it takes is a single economic downturn to loosen America's commitment to free trade, then Canadian companies should be more hesitant in doing business in the US. They never know when the tides would change and they will lose their investment at a time that they need it most.
I doubt that this will mean a complete withdraw from the American market; that would be absurd. Caution, however, would mean less trade and perhaps less profit. Once again the USA Congress has accomplished nothing but short term damage and long term harm in their efforts to fight this recession.
Susan Delacourt makes the case that Maxime Bernier may be taken off the back burner soon. If this is true I think that it would be a great thing for the government and for Canada. Put him in an economic profile where he belongs and can do the most good.
Don Martin writes his column about Conservative MPs being warned to stay away from the Wildrose Alliance and Albertan politics in general. I agree with Mr. Martin's analysis. The federal Tories are likely in a wait and see position. Personally I think that the WA has a better chance than the ADQ did, but Mr. Harper does not want to be burned twice.
The more pertinent question is how things are shaping up on the ground. To what extent are the Conservative EDAs (Electoral District Association) leaning towards the WA or staying loyal to the PCs? Sadly this is not a question that I am in a good position to answer, but it could be vital to the success of the WA.
The greatest disadvantage to an upstart party is a lack of experienced operates. Luckily Danielle Smith herself is an experienced operator, and many such party elites have abandoned the PCs and signed up with the WA.
The second major issue is a strong, experienced, and widespread volunteer base. If the WA is able to borrow federal Tory volunteers than it could make the difference in some close ridings.
You should not underestimate the importance of the ground war.
Anyone who still believes that the deficit is temporary and not systemic should take a look at this Ottawa Citizen article.
The size of the bureaucracy in the federal government has grown by 4.5%. That means that there are now 4.5% more people with an interest in keeping the current spending levels. This means to cut back on spending the Conservative Party is going to have to fight the interests of more people.
Civil Servants hardly ever get fired. So how is the government going to get rid of this expansion? How are they going to get government back down to the size of the good old days of Paul Martin?
According to the Scotsman, the communist images of Che Guevera will soon likely be banned in Poland. This is to go along with the bans already in place against Nazi imagery. I'm glad that Che is being compared to Hitler (this can tell you my opinion on that), but I'm saddened that Poland hasn't learned the lessons of the totalitarian regimes they have survived.
The oppression of ideas and speech means the oppression of the people. Even if those ideas are horrible and nasty they should be allowed to enter the market of ideas. The truth is there is no way to prevent them from entering the market of ideas anyway. Just because you get rid of some t-shirts doesn't mean you have wiped out the concepts that they represent.
I myself own two Che t-shirts ( this one and this one). I wonder if I would be allowed to wear them in Poland after this becomes law? I wonder if the Polish judicial system appreciates irony.
I like how selective they are on who they choose to be on their list. Mike Harris is also a fiscal conservative, so is Ralph Klein for that matter. Just because others have claimed that mantel then screwed it up doesn't mean that Ms. Smith will do the same.
Besides that I find this to be an interesting ad. It is certainly more lively then what I'm use to from the Alberta Liberals, though I'm uncertain of the logic of attacking the WA.
Liberals are pinning their hopes on the "right being split." They think that they can go through the middle of a three way race. If this was going to happen, which I doubt it would, shouldn't they be hoping for a strong WA? Why are they taking the time to attack them?
(thanks to John Collison for posting this in the comments)
I was momentarily puzzled by the news that Jean Chretien had received the Order of Merit from Queen Elizibeth the First (I'm in Scotland). For a bit there I thought that meant that Mr. Chretien was the first Canadian Prime Minister (or former Prime Minister) to by knighted since Sir Robert Borden. This would fly in the face of several historical developments regarding Canadians and British honours. (for more information just ask Baron Black of Crossharbour)
5 seconds of research (thank god for wikipedia) proved that this was not the case. I thought I would share with you my public the results of that extensive research (in case you were too lazy to take the 5 seconds yourself).
According to wikipedia:
As the Order of Merit is open to the citizens of sixteen different countries, each with their own system of orders, decorations, and medals, the order's place of precedence varies from country to country. While in the United Kingdom, members rank below Knights and Dames Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath, it has been claimed by Stanley Martin, in his book The Order of Merit 1902-2002: One Hundred Years of Matchless Honour, that the Order of Merit is actually the pinnacle of the British honours system.[16] Similarly, though it is not listed in the Canadian order of precedence for honours, decorations, and medals, except relating to those who were appointed to the order prior to 1 June 1972,[17] Christopher McCreery stated in his book The Order of Canada: Its Origins, History and Development that the Order of Merit was the highest civilian award for merit a Canadian could receive.
I take the phrase "members rank below knights" to indicate that is is not an actual knighthood.
Also of note is that Jean Chretien is the only Canadian to currently hold this honour.
Living in Scotland for the year, I really miss maple syrup. I guess that makes me truly Canadian because my favourite MP, Scott Reid, unveiled a plaque that says maple syrup is an important part of our history and identity. I've seen Mr. Reid talk about Canadian history, and believe me he knows what he is talking about.
It was an exciting leadership race and I only regret that I could not have followed it more closely from Ontario/Scotland. It is also a very exciting victory that has brought fiscal conservatives and libertarians a new hope, not just for Alberta but for Canada as well.
I think that Ms. Smith was the best choice and I congratulate WA members for making it. Now get out there and rescue your province from clutches of the welfare-liberals.
Andrew Coyne and Paul Wells talk a little about what I posted earlier today. They also talk about Obama's Nobel Prize and the value of democratization.
Personally I disagree with Mr. Wells' justification of Obama's Nobel. Though he does make the best case I've heard. Basically his argument is that the prize has long been awarded for people that haven't made a substantive difference. Therefore it is not absurd for President Obama to win the award for not making a substantive difference.
I don't disagree with that so much as I disagree with the low standards that are required to win a Peace Prize. Especially when you compare it to the high standards of the other Nobel Prizes. That is to say, just because they have been silly in the past does not justify their most recent silliness.
Andrew Coyne writes that Michael Ignatieff could come back from his political collapse with a serious and adult attack upon the deficit. If Mr. Ignatieff, argues Mr. Coyne, talks seriously about what can and should be done to combat the deficit, then he is likely to find a great deal more support. Indeed he can hearken back to the Chretien years of deficit fighting. You want a good fiscal manager? Vote Liberal!
Mr. Coyne is right. This would be a fantastic strategy and it would be great for the country. The sad thing is that it is already too late. The Liberals have taken weak pot shots at the budget and focused on how they would spend billions of dollars. Michael Ignatieff has already presented himself to the Canadian public as a big Liberal spender, and you can be sure the Conservatives will make that title stick.
I sympathise with Andrew Coyne. He and I have the same problem. We are both sports fans with no team to cheer for; dedicated fiscal conservatives with no party to put our hopes behind. The Conservative Party, once the great hope of conservatives, has betrayed itself.
But I would not hold my breath and hope that Michael Ignatieff will take up our cause.
I just recieved an e-mail letting me know that the Institution of Liberal Studies is holding an event in Ottawa. ILS is a classically liberal organization that puts on seminars about smaller government and greater personal freedom. I highly recomend everyone checking them out.
Here is the e-mail:
On Saturday, October 24 we'll be hosting a one-day seminar on Economics and Government at the University of Ottawa.
If you're interested in learning how economic theories and principles impact the way our country is governed please join us for a unique and challenging discussion of ideas that affect us all.
Speakers for this seminar will be:
John Robson (Ottawa Citizen/University of Ottawa) - How to Think Like an Economist
Steve Horwitz (St. Lawrence University) - Government and the Recession
Michel Kelly-Gagnon (Montreal Economic Institute) - Little Known Aspects of Canada's History
The seminar will begin at 10:00am and conclude at 4:00pm in University Centre Room 125. Each talk will be followed by time for questions and discussion by the participants. The seminar is free for students, general admission is $20. Morning coffee and lunch will be provided.
Space is limited, so register early to guarantee your place.
Freedom of Speech is an essential component of a free society. In Canada, this freedom has been under attack under the pretext of protecting and promoting human rights.
Laws that prohibit the free expression of opinion undermine the very foundations of a free and tolerant society and are, therefore, illegitimate and must be abolished.
And this is what the petition states:
We the undersigned call on lawmakers at all levels of government in Canada to:
A) Examine all legislation within their jurisdiction intended to protect and promote human rights, and
B) To amend said legislation to remove those provisions that prohibit or otherwise limit the free and sincere expression of opinion.
Yesterday I wrote a post concerning the need for Michael Ignatieff to take more policy risks. I joked that he should look into a carbon tax. I want to state for the record that it was a joke. I never thought that the Liberals would be silly enough to bring the environment up again.
The policy that they are proposing is not a carbon tax but it has a lot of the same problems, but I will get to that in a minute. This is the policy according the Globe & Mail:
Undaunted, Mr. Ignatieff, in a speech to the Vancouver Board of Trade, laid out a three-pronged approach to making Canada a global leader in clean energy by investing in new technologies and new industries; by upgrading the energy infrastructure through a so-called “smart” energy grid, and by making the federal government – the nation’s largest employer and customer – a model of environmentally responsible behaviour.
"Investing" in new industries? You mean making industries out of thin air? I wonder how well that has worked for wind power these last ten years? Seriously if a new "green" industry was economically viable they wouldn't need government "investment." Millionaires and billionaires would be clamouring all over themselves to get in on the ground floor. Mr. Ignatieff isn't proposing an "investment" that would pay out dividends but a subsidy that will be yet another drain on the treasury.
I am not going to even ask what a "smart energy grid" is. I'm just going to go straight to the question of how much is it going to cost:
When asked after the speech what his program would cost, Mr. Ignatieff said it was “not huge in dollar terms” and would have a multiplier effect in creating new jobs and tax revenues.
Hang on didn't he also say that the government would be the biggest employer and customer? Then doesn't that mean that they will be using tax dollars to both pay employees and purchase the products. Let me just take a look at my economics 101 textbook here...oh yeah that means zero economic gain. Excuse me while I go bang my head against the wall for a few minutes.
The most galling part of this is that at the same time as proposing new spending of untold billions, the Liberals are attacking the Conservatives on the deficit. Now yes, attack the Conservatives, they deserve to be taken to task on their ever bloating budgets. But please don't propose such idiotic spending increases at the same time.
Besides the policy being stupid in fact, it is stupid in politics. Didn't the last election show that people care more about the economy than about the environment (hurray enlightened self interest)? Mr. Ignatieff had a response to that:
“The key point I’m trying to make today is that this is not marginal to an economic strategy,” he said. “This is a key piece of it for us.”
Oh yeah you tried that line in the last election too, and it didn't work. Now that the economic situation is worse, you figure it will work this time?
People aren't stupid. If you say the government is going to spend billions of dollars on "green jobs." People think to themselves, "I am not in a green job, I am not trained for a green job, I'm not totally sure I know what a green job is. Therefore I have no interest in the government giving my money so that someone else can work."
When people said that you needed to take risks, Mr Ignatieff, they needed to be more specific. You need to take smart risks.
The Globe & Mail is presenting a case that Micheal Ignatieff needs to take more risks if he wants to reverse the polls. The article reports that a pollster believes that the Liberals need to create "buzz" with their policy and come up with "wedge" issues. Something like a carbon tax perhaps?
The problem is that Mr. Ignatieff has a tendency to enter into a too honest debate about policy. He suggested once that perhaps raised or new taxes would be needed to fight the deficit. This is a legitimate policy view (though one that I would argue against in the strongest terms), but it is not a view that a self interested politician should express off the cuff.
Mr. Ignatieff has spent his life in academics where no idea is too bizarre to be discussed. He is unused to Kim Campbell's wise dictum regarding elections and serious issues. Yet he has to learn to be able to enter into the policy debate without shooting himself in the foot. He has to be willing to take policy positions not as an academic would, but as a politician would.
That is, he has to learn to take on policies that would win him votes and be a little less intellectually honest. Then he can start taking the appropriate risks.
Saturday Night Life produced a skit that called President Obama out on his failure to get anything of substance done:
CNN points out that there are some exaggerations made for comedic effect and (shockingly) that the President can be expected to be satirized more in the future:
I'm not sure how funny the sketch really is. I can't honestly say that I actually laughed at any point. But there is something to be said about the message and the sudden willingness of SNL to take shots at the President.
Last year I talked about the Randy Marsh Effect. The realization of Mr. Obama's supporters that the oceans are not now made out of honey and the streets made out of cheese. The empty glory that the President's success was based on, is fading and made absurd by silly Swedish prizes. What is worse, President Obama did not even make a solid beginnings to the Change that was promised.
It is often said that the first hundred days of a Presidency is the most crucial. Given the nature of the American electoral cycle, there may be some truth to this. If so then President Obama has squandered his opportunity. This looks especially bad considering how much dominant the Democrats are after the last election. If the Republicans stage even a moderate come back, the chance of a lifetime for the Democratic Party would evaporate.
I know, I know, three posts in one day on the same topic is kind of lame. But on the other hand the whole Obama getting a Nobel Peace Prize thing is really funny. And to help illustrate that, I've compiled a series of cartoons that have appeared on the subject (with the help of this site).
I'm very hot and cold when it comes to the UK Conservative Party. They talk a good talk about making government smaller and personal responsibility. But then they announce something like this:
Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling told the party's conference he would double the price of supermarket brand high-strength cider, currently one of the cheapest drinks on the shelf.
Yes take personal responsibility but we are going to limit your ability to make choices. Yes small government, so small in fact that it looks like your little old nanny.
Seriously this is the sort of move that I would expect from Dalton McGuinty's Liberals in Ontario. Not from the supposed great hope of free market individualism in the UK.
Most people agree that the Nobel Peace Price being awarded to President Obama is either silly or absurd. Even my lefty European schoolmates had a bit of a giggle over the news. Yet there are those who will blindly defend it. Such people bring to mind the more silly defenders of President Bush's final years.
No I don't say that just because they are using blatant Bush tactics:
It is more because there is a certain intellectual acrobatic ability that would be admirable if it wasn't so scary. I will give you an example of what I am talking about:
Even if you buy the idea that he is "steering the ship in a different direction," which I don't, this is just silly. The basic argument is that he deserves this prestigious award for the goal of peace because he has different ideas than someone that the Scandinavian elite don't like. Note that I say different ideas and not different policies.
As for the "dark aberration," fine, now you know how some of us feel about FDR. But it is not enough to be someone other than President Bush. That is not an accomplishment. The Constitution of the United States guaranteed that the next President would not be George Bush. So would you argue that President McCain would be equally deserving of the Nobel Peace prize?
This writer and others like him are either blinded by their hatred of Bush or their love for Obama. Perhaps it is a little bit of both? Either way we have to prepare ourselves for at least 3 more years of Bush style politics.
Gerry Nicholls has announced on his blog the launch of a new website called Libertas Post. The mission of this website is to encourage free market ideas and to be the go to site for small 'c' conservatives. He made this video to further explain the purpose of Libertas Post.
There has been repeated jumping up and down saying Michael Ignatieff will raise taxes. There has been equal jumping up and down saying that he won't. Here and here are two (nearly identical) articles that illistrate the confusion.
While we are waiting for Mr. Ignatieff to say "read my lips no new taxes," let us consider that taxation is not what would make him a disastrous Prime Minister.
Mr. Ignatieff is a politician with a plan and, as Gerry Nicholls points out, a politician with a plan is something to be feared. He is a man who believes that the economy is a giant wealth making machine. He can pull a lever here and push a button there then boom! Economic prosperity for everyone.
The truth is either more complicated or more simple depending on how you look at it. The market is not an abstract force and economics isn't a game to be played like Civilization. It is reality. That is to say that the market is millions of interactions between individuals; it is society.
What Mr. Ignatieff proposes to do, indeed what most governments propose to do, is to use force to reshape reality.
In his speech a couple of weeks ago, Mr. Ignatieff said he will give hand outs of other people's money to regions and certain sectors that he chooses. He will decide who can buy what companies and for what reasons. In short Mr. Ignatieff will decide who wins and who loses. Not the millions of consumer choices that make up the real world, but the political whims of a central government.
Steve Chapman at Reason Magazine correctly points out that Mr. Obama is not a socialist. He is a government expanding statist in the tradition of George W. Bush to be sure, but not really a socialist.
Since he's under attack for allegedly being a covert socialist, you would think President Obama would get some love from the overt socialists. But they sound about as enamored of him as Sean Hannity is.
"Obama's a market guy!" fumed Frank Llewellyn, head of the Democratic Socialists of America, in an interview with Politics Daily. "He's not any kind of socialist at all. He's not challenging the power of corporations. The banking reforms that have been suggested are not particularly far-reaching. ... I mean it's laugh out loud, really."
In the past, Republicans had a damning word for their opponents. In 1988, George H.W. Bush denounced Democrat Michael Dukakis, as a "liberal." Four years later, he portrayed Bill Clinton as a "tax-and-spend liberal." In 2004, John Kerry was tarred as a "rich, liberal elitist." But such is the intensity of disgust with Obama that his conservative critics had to escalate to a new epithet.
To this sort of mind, Llewellyn's denial only confirms that socialists are sneaky as well as sinister. What better way to advance their agenda than by pretending to disavow the leader who is faithfully implementing it?
Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn appeared in front of a Parliamentary committee reviewing the Canadian Human Rights Act Section 13. What followed is an interesting debate on both free speech and the application of justice.
Before you watch it, and I encourage you to watch the whole thing, I have to give out two awards.
The first is for worst straw man argument: this is won by Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh, you can find his submission at part 6 time 3:42-4:09.
The second award is for most douchy comment: this is won by another Liberal MP Brian Murphy, part 2 6:38-7:07.
The Toronto Sun is reporting a major drug bust. An Ontario marijuana grow operation that was worth a reported $1 300 000 was discovered and broken up. This has to be a great victory in the fight against drugs, right?
It would be if there was only $1.3 million worth of marijuana in Ontario. The truth is that this is a mere drop in the ocean of pot smoking in Ontario, never mind the rest of the world. Even if this was a fatal blow to one particular organization, how fast will some other gang move in to take this market share? I want to say that it will be a matter of months, but I will be more conservative and guess that this marijuana will be replaced in a year.
Even the police admit that this police action will have limited effect on the drug trade:
"Is it going to end it (the drug trade)? No. Is it going to assist in getting some of the drugs off the street? Definitely," Const. Wendy Drummond said of the bust.
Now I want to know how much money was spent on this futility? How much police resources went into this band aid that could not possibly stop the bleeding? Is an attempt to command the tide not to come in really a good use of taxpayer's dollars?
As they would say in HBO's The Wire, this is nothing but drugs on the table.
The CBC complains that the government is "losing" millions of dollars by waiving gun licensing fees. The logic of this astounds me:
The government could be collecting this money. The government is not collecting this money. Therefore the government is losing money.
The mind boggles at the billions of dollars "lost" by not raising income taxes to 100%.
The CBC does make one good point. This is "a time of record deficits." This is very worrying for me and should be worrying to everyone of my youthful generation.
So I propose that we dismantle the CBC. It is, after all, painfully obvious that every penny they get is a lost one.
The Toronto Star is reporting rumours that as many as three Liberal MPs are considering defecting to the Conservative Party. There is some talk that Ruby Dhalla could be among those that may defect. Personally I find this to be incredibly unlikely. There are some Liberals that could enter the Conservative Party and lay claim to "Red Tory" status, Ms. Dhalla is not one of them. I doubt she would feel comfortable in a party that is at least nominally "small government."
This is underlined by the source of tension between Ms. Dhalla and her party leadership. According to the article I linked above, Ms. Dhalla has introduced a bill that would extend old age pension to immigrants. The Liberal Party leadership decided not to support the bill because it cost too much.
Now consider the irony of leaving the Liberal Party for the Conservative Party because the Liberal Party was too fiscally responsible.
Fortunately I am not the only one who is of this opinion (from the Star article):
Conservatives would not name the trio – even suggesting Dhalla might not be "a good fit" in the caucus
According to the Globe & Mail, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities have dropped the threatened boycott against United States suppliers. This is in response to the "Buy American" laws in the US. The boycott was meant to begin today but was withdrawn to give trade negotiations "time and space." At the same time the Federation may set a new deadline if the negotiations break down.
The threat of a counter boycott is a good one to bring pressure on the United States. It will encourage the manufactures to lobby Congress and the White House to exempt Canada. It may be the leverage that Canadian diplomats need.
It would be a horrible idea if they actually carry through with the threat. Just because American taxpayers are being screwed doesn't mean Canadian taxpayers should be screwed as well. Every city should purchase at the best market prices, no matter where the product was made. Politicians should not be playing politics with other people's money.
There is talk in the United Kingdom of electoral reform. The Prime Minister Gordon Brown stated his support for am "Alternative Voting System." This is a brief description of the proposal according to Reuters:
Under this system, voters will be asked to mark their preferred candidate, their second choice and so on. If a candidate receives a majority of first place votes, he or she would be elected just as under the present system.
However, if no single candidate gets more than 50 percent of the vote, the second choices for the candidate at the bottom are redistributed. The process is repeated until one candidate gets an absolute majority. The alternative vote is not actually a proportional system, but a majoritarian system.
This is the most sensible electoral reform proposal for a Westminster style legislature. It does not completely overhaul the current system, with any possible disastrous results. Instead it tweaks the current system, to the possible advantage of the system as a whole.
The first advantage is that it more accurately reflects to choices of an electoral district. To make a Canadian example: if 60% of a riding hates the Liberals passionately, it is possible that the Liberals might win with 40% of the vote. Under this system it will allow Liberal haters to put Conservative or NDP first or second. This would ensure that the riding is not represented by a party that the majority despise.
The second advantage is that it could make it easier for smaller parties to be successful. One of the great hurdles of a small party is the "waisted vote" mentality. If someone is sympathetic to the Libertarian Party but wants to ensure a Conservative Party victory, they could vote Libertarian (1) and Conservative (2).
A third advantage is that it could create a more cordial Parliament. If the Conservative Party discover that a significant number of NDP voters are putting them second, it would give them an incentive not to be vicious to the NDP. They could still criticize their policies, but they would have to be careful not to annoy NDP voters.
Mr. Brown is proposing a referendum on this reform if he wins the next election. I would be interested in seeing the results of that plebiscite.
I still get the "Blue Pages" an e-mail from the PC Party of Ontario to their supporters. In this e-mail the PC leader Tim Hudak laid out his priorities for the new session of the Ontario Parliament. Since I have stated that I am in a "wait and see posture" towards Mr. Hudak, I thought it would be useful to analyse his stated priorities.
Working for conditions that will allow the private sector to create more jobs and build a stronger economy.
Holding the McGuinty Liberals accountable for the culture of entitlement that produced the scandals at OLG and eHealth.
Stopping Dalton McGuinty’s Harmonized Sales Tax (DST) which will place a massive new burden on middle class families and small businesses.
For the first one I would say I like the rhetoric. He does not say work to make new jobs he says to allow the 'private sector' to make new jobs. I welcome this sort of language from any politician. The question is does he mean it or is it just rhetoric? More on that later...
The second point is standard opposition stuff. If you change a few words it could have come from the Federal Liberals: Holding the Harper Conservatives accountable for the culture of entitlement that produced the scandals such as the In and Out and public funds scandals.
The great thing about this e-mail is that Mr. Hudak is actually taking a proactive policy stance. He is not merely opposing as John Tory did; he is entering into the debate of ideas. This is very welcomed, and I hope that we see more policy put forth well ahead of the election.
These are the policies:
An immediate one-year payroll tax holiday on new hires to encourage job creation.
Eliminating the land-transfer tax for one year to spur construction jobs and make the dream of home ownership more affordable for middle-class families.
A new approach to public sector wage agreements that reflect the realities faced by the taxpayers that foot the bill.
I have been critical in the past of this tax holiday concept. If the tax is so harmful to the economy that getting rid of it would be such boost, then why not get rid of it forever? Also it is not a good thing when the government creates uncertainty for business. Will this tax be around next year or will the holiday be extended?
That being said, this isn't a horrible policy. It is a step in the right directions and makes good assumptions. It may not be exactly what I would want, but it would likely do more harm than good.
The last policy point is a good one. This is a good time to take a look not just at current contracts, but the manner in which those contracts were agreed upon. I can certainly endorse this policy.
Over all I am encouraged but not yet completely convinced.
I posted earlier that the CBC was reporting a deal that would exempt Canada from the new protectionist policies in the United States. The Globe & Mail is now reporting that this is not true. Negotiations for such a deal are underway but they have not concluded.
I sincerely hope that Canada can win an exemption. There is a history of making Canada a special case; Canada was not included in Richard Nixon's protectionist policies. Canada and the United States had such a complex trade relationship that such policies would have been (particularly) disastrous.
Today that relationship is even more complicated, with trade booming since the signing of the FTA then NAFTA. Great progress has been made in expanding and deepening free trade between Canada and the US. It would be a shame if it was all for naught.
The NDP have joined the game of pre-writ television spots:
This is the same guy that said he'll oppose the budget a month before it was released, but assuming Canadians forgot about that, this is not a bad ad. It is simple and it plays on preceptions that the Conservatives and Liberals are behaving overly partisan.
The danger of this ad is that Canadians are getting tired of the election blame game. Everytime there is a threat of an election, every party accuses the others of being responsible. Of course no political party wants to be blamed for doing something that would annoy the electorate, but I don't think the Canadian people care who triggered the election. At this point they aren't blaming any party but the whole system. If it is true that Canadians are tired of elections, then it is a pox on all parties.
Posts
